[Migol]

The part I enjoyed was the more "unknown" weapons, like the african iron weaponry or the obsidian saw-club. Hearing actual facts about the warriors that I didn't know was good too, I had no real idea who Vlad the Impaler was beyond "some dark ages guy who inspired the dracula legend". Finding that sort of information was a treat. But again, for each good part, you had some dumbassery from the hosts ><

[Darkwatch]

What I want to see is the following:

Kim Jong-il vs. Elizabeth II

USS Nimitz vs. Roman Trireme

Blood Angels Space Marine vs. Franciscan Monk

Einstein vs Max Planck

Stalin vs Hitler

Stalin vs Churchill

Churchill vs Hitler

[Primateus]

What? You don't think the Einstein vs. Max Planck fight would a bit one-sided?

[Darkwatch]

If deadliest warrior has taught me anything is that there is no such thing as one sided even when it should be.
Besides it all depends on your point of view at any rate.

[Tapper]

 Darkwatch, on 04 August 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

If deadliest warrior has taught me anything is that there is no such thing as one sided even when it should be.
Besides it all depends on your point of view at any rate.

This. It is in a great many ways a ridiculous show, because it takes very little into account and just assesses weapon damage delivered under optimal conditions and judged by a rather non-critical audience of 'experts' plus the proponents of said warrior. A better name would be 'Best Rambo clone'.

Quote

Mwaha, making same mistake as producers. Cant compare legionnare against spartan hoplite and say "he´s better". It was matter of tactic and terrain. Legions are (much) upgraded phalanx - peltast system. Still, in some cases I would bet on old schol, pre-macedonian phalanx...or northern shield wall/ schiltron.. But main reason why were romans superior (putting aside iron - bronze) were numbers. Where Rome can lose small batlle, polis wouldnt...too few men, no regular army And of course, gladius is better version of xipphos system...and great argument:)

Actually, the guys the Romans fought were mainly the diadochoi of Alexander. They had big armies and their phalanxes consisted of highly trained Macedonians (and their descendents), with heavy cavalry as the hammer. Moreover, by the time Rome decided to conquer Macedonia instead of just defeating it time and time again, they had just finished fighting exhausting wars against Carthage.

In case of the Spartan, are we talking full hoplite panoply or 4th century cloth cap and tunic style, for example? It makes quite a difference.

[Primateus]

The Spartan were the armed, armoured (bronze cuirass, greaves, helmet, big shield) kind with spear, javelin, sword and hitting with his shield.

[Ulrik]

 Tapper, on 04 August 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

 Darkwatch, on 04 August 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

If deadliest warrior has taught me anything is that there is no such thing as one sided even when it should be.
Besides it all depends on your point of view at any rate.

This. It is in a great many ways a ridiculous show, because it takes very little into account and just assesses weapon damage delivered under optimal conditions and judged by a rather non-critical audience of 'experts' plus the proponents of said warrior. A better name would be 'Best Rambo clone'.

Quote

Mwaha, making same mistake as producers. Cant compare legionnare against spartan hoplite and say "he´s better". It was matter of tactic and terrain. Legions are (much) upgraded phalanx - peltast system. Still, in some cases I would bet on old schol, pre-macedonian phalanx...or northern shield wall/ schiltron.. But main reason why were romans superior (putting aside iron - bronze) were numbers. Where Rome can lose small batlle, polis wouldnt...too few men, no regular army And of course, gladius is better version of xipphos system...and great argument:)

Actually, the guys the Romans fought were mainly the diadochoi of Alexander. They had big armies and their phalanxes consisted of highly trained Macedonians (and their descendents), with heavy cavalry as the hammer. Moreover, by the time Rome decided to conquer Macedonia instead of just defeating it time and time again, they had just finished fighting exhausting wars against Carthage.

In case of the Spartan, are we talking full hoplite panoply or 4th century cloth cap and tunic style, for example? It makes quite a difference.

Yup, agree. I meant Pydna etc, well, deciding whole armies with auxiliaries is overloading capacity od DW... I personally think that macedonian army was maybe too degenerated by fighting in specific conditions (opponents, terrain)...
Spartan is meant full panoply (if you are interested, this episode would interest you..and Roman Centurion vs Rajput would make you angry...maybe...) and its influenced by 300 slightly (rolling eyes)

[Tsundoku]

Spartan defeats Ninja?

Maybe if it was a Halo Spartan. With time to prepare. And unobstructed fields of fire.

Idiots.

[Ulrik]

Ninjas are overestimated (too many stupid...or not so stupid and pretty good movies). Yup, let him sneak in night and its over. 1 on 1 in day... I´ll take panoply

[tiam]

 Ulrik, on 02 August 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

 Bauchelain the Evil, on 02 August 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

 Primateus, on 02 August 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Another was the Spartan vs. the Ninja. The spartan shield bash certainly seemed extremely powerful, what with it basically being capable of punching straight through your head.

Wait,what? They matched a soldier whose greatest advantage is team play and whose modus operandi is basically stand your ground and push against a guy whose job is to sneak behind people ? Really clever.

 j2tks, on 01 August 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

i think the spartans would be a good bet for the best 'pre modern heavy infantry' type

*cough* Roman Legionnaire *cough*

Mwaha, making same mistake as producers. Cant compare legionnare against spartan hoplite and say "he´s better". It was matter of tactic and terrain. Legions are (much) upgraded phalanx - peltast system. Still, in some cases I would bet on old schol, pre-macedonian phalanx...or northern shield wall/ schiltron.. But main reason why were romans superior (putting aside iron - bronze) were numbers. Where Rome can lose small batlle, polis wouldnt...too few men, no regular army And of course, gladius is better version of xipphos system...and great argument:)


But for the show - it isnt important who stands against who - and winning. Its testing of weapons on human-like material and busting of myths (like uberkatana...or as I sometimes heard "helm would stop it, but it ill break your neck"). But of course, even that has drawbacks - usually underestimated chainmail (you see, our thurst penetrated it, its useless).

The Spartan military system is so romanticised as an elite fighting force because of 300 Spartans etc. The Spartans actually surrendered onj an island just off the coast during the Peloppenesian wars so they were not the fanatics the sensationalised documentaries suggest. Theres a really good quote from someone (name escapes me) that said it wasnt that the Spartan training system was superior but they alone trained. The Helot system allowed them to train but they were not proffessional soldiers.

The Roman never really received massive losses in Greece so the numbers arguement that worked for the Second Punic War isnt relevant. Also often the Macedonian forces outnumbered the Roman forces. The Macedonians had a professional army when the Romans invaded and it was substantial. Also claiming that the polis couldnt field sufficient forces makes it sound like the Romans fought individual Polis states rather than Leagues like the Achaean League and the Aetolian League.The Romans were able to conquer Greece because it followed traditional conventions at the time. They lost a great battle and made peace in the same way as during the Polis system. Dont get me wrong Aemilius Paullus claimed the Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna in 168 was terrifying but it had more to do with the tactical flexibility of the Manipular system.

As for the show I watched a few. The Attilla vs Alexander one was interesting-ish though Attila would have battered him from miles away with the bow. After the scenarios became more ridiculous I sort of lost interest and as people have said its appealing to a certain type of audience.

This post has been edited by tiam: 05 August 2011 - 09:15 AM

[Ulrik]

 tiam, on 05 August 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

 Ulrik, on 02 August 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

 Bauchelain the Evil, on 02 August 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

 Primateus, on 02 August 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Another was the Spartan vs. the Ninja. The spartan shield bash certainly seemed extremely powerful, what with it basically being capable of punching straight through your head.

Wait,what? They matched a soldier whose greatest advantage is team play and whose modus operandi is basically stand your ground and push against a guy whose job is to sneak behind people ? Really clever.

 j2tks, on 01 August 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

i think the spartans would be a good bet for the best 'pre modern heavy infantry' type

*cough* Roman Legionnaire *cough*

Mwaha, making same mistake as producers. Cant compare legionnare against spartan hoplite and say "he´s better". It was matter of tactic and terrain. Legions are (much) upgraded phalanx - peltast system. Still, in some cases I would bet on old schol, pre-macedonian phalanx...or northern shield wall/ schiltron.. But main reason why were romans superior (putting aside iron - bronze) were numbers. Where Rome can lose small batlle, polis wouldnt...too few men, no regular army And of course, gladius is better version of xipphos system...and great argument:)


But for the show - it isnt important who stands against who - and winning. Its testing of weapons on human-like material and busting of myths (like uberkatana...or as I sometimes heard "helm would stop it, but it ill break your neck"). But of course, even that has drawbacks - usually underestimated chainmail (you see, our thurst penetrated it, its useless).

The Spartan military system is so romanticised as an elite fighting force because of 300 Spartans etc. The Spartans actually surrendered onj an island just off the coast during the Peloppenesian wars so they were not the fanatics the sensationalised documentaries suggest. Theres a really good quote from someone (name escapes me) that said it wasnt that the Spartan training system was superior but they alone trained. The Helot system allowed them to train but they were not proffessional soldiers.

The Roman never really received massive losses in Greece so the numbers arguement that worked for the Second Punic War isnt relevant. Also often the Macedonian forces outnumbered the Roman forces. The Macedonians had a professional army when the Romans invaded and it was substantial. Also claiming that the polis couldnt field sufficient forces makes it sound like the Romans fought individual Polis states rather than Leagues like the Achaean League and the Aetolian League.The Romans were able to conquer Greece because it followed traditional conventions at the time. They lost a great battle and made peace in the same way as during the Polis system. Dont get me wrong Aemilius Paullus claimed the Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna in 168 was terrifying but it had more to do with the tactical flexibility of the Manipular system.

As for the show I watched a few. The Attilla vs Alexander one was interesting-ish though Attila would have battered him from miles away with the bow. After the scenarios became more ridiculous I sort of lost interest and as people have said its appealing to a certain type of audience.

Oh, c´mon mate, do not tell me about Sparta and ancient Greek, I spent few years on university with them, Im really far from "hey, I ´ve seen 300, theyre cool!" Spartans surrended, many times lost, thir system wasnt good for large cale war (too few soldiers).
Part about polis wasnt suggesting anythin about Romans, but on mere weakness of Achaian system. Usually, even in Peloponessian wars, they wasnt able to sustain few losses - they ran out of fighting force. For example, one polis (cant remember if Thessalia...dunno) was almost wiped out, because they alway had "place of honor" in phalanx...and also biggest losses. And it was done in cca 30 years. So, I was argumenting against strengh of greek forces:) (not Macedonian, that was completely other story...and difficult for me to distinct in post, when we are talking about two different systems).


For Macedonians...well... This is for longer discussion. For me, macedonian system was too specialized. In basic system, it was great...till thing went good way. But lack of adaptatability for different situation was (for me) what made legions better - premarian or postmarian. Whey macedonian phalangite has to change his ROE (abandon spear, take short weapon), he was doomed.

For show - yeah, its pushing more and more to audience type Im not...:/

[Tsundoku]

 Ulrik, on 05 August 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Ninjas are overestimated (too many stupid...or not so stupid and pretty good movies). Yup, let him sneak in night and its over. 1 on 1 in day... I´ll take panoply

Heh, the true ninjas of pre-Meiji Japan weren't trained so much as straight-up fighters, more as assassins. If the target was aware of them, then they had already failed. Poison + blow gun + sneak attack = game over.

Actually, any truly competent assassin who gets the drop on a "vanilla" (if I may use the term) straight up fighter/warrior will win pretty much every time.

The only fair fight is the one you lose.

[Ulrik]

 Sombra, on 05 August 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

 Ulrik, on 05 August 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Ninjas are overestimated (too many stupid...or not so stupid and pretty good movies). Yup, let him sneak in night and its over. 1 on 1 in day... I´ll take panoply

Heh, the true ninjas of pre-Meiji Japan weren't trained so much as straight-up fighters, more as assassins. If the target was aware of them, then they had already failed. Poison + blow gun + sneak attack = game over.

Actually, any truly competent assassin who gets the drop on a "vanilla" (if I may use the term) straight up fighter/warrior will win pretty much every time.

The only fair fight is the one you lose.

Yup IMO it was mistake to put stealthy assassin and spy into fight with classic soldier. But thats copyright of the show... :/

[tiam]

 Ulrik, on 05 August 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

 tiam, on 05 August 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

 Ulrik, on 02 August 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

 Bauchelain the Evil, on 02 August 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

 Primateus, on 02 August 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Another was the Spartan vs. the Ninja. The spartan shield bash certainly seemed extremely powerful, what with it basically being capable of punching straight through your head.

Wait,what? They matched a soldier whose greatest advantage is team play and whose modus operandi is basically stand your ground and push against a guy whose job is to sneak behind people ? Really clever.

 j2tks, on 01 August 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

i think the spartans would be a good bet for the best 'pre modern heavy infantry' type

*cough* Roman Legionnaire *cough*

Mwaha, making same mistake as producers. Cant compare legionnare against spartan hoplite and say "he´s better". It was matter of tactic and terrain. Legions are (much) upgraded phalanx - peltast system. Still, in some cases I would bet on old schol, pre-macedonian phalanx...or northern shield wall/ schiltron.. But main reason why were romans superior (putting aside iron - bronze) were numbers. Where Rome can lose small batlle, polis wouldnt...too few men, no regular army And of course, gladius is better version of xipphos system...and great argument:)


But for the show - it isnt important who stands against who - and winning. Its testing of weapons on human-like material and busting of myths (like uberkatana...or as I sometimes heard "helm would stop it, but it ill break your neck"). But of course, even that has drawbacks - usually underestimated chainmail (you see, our thurst penetrated it, its useless).

The Spartan military system is so romanticised as an elite fighting force because of 300 Spartans etc. The Spartans actually surrendered onj an island just off the coast during the Peloppenesian wars so they were not the fanatics the sensationalised documentaries suggest. Theres a really good quote from someone (name escapes me) that said it wasnt that the Spartan training system was superior but they alone trained. The Helot system allowed them to train but they were not proffessional soldiers.

The Roman never really received massive losses in Greece so the numbers arguement that worked for the Second Punic War isnt relevant. Also often the Macedonian forces outnumbered the Roman forces. The Macedonians had a professional army when the Romans invaded and it was substantial. Also claiming that the polis couldnt field sufficient forces makes it sound like the Romans fought individual Polis states rather than Leagues like the Achaean League and the Aetolian League.The Romans were able to conquer Greece because it followed traditional conventions at the time. They lost a great battle and made peace in the same way as during the Polis system. Dont get me wrong Aemilius Paullus claimed the Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna in 168 was terrifying but it had more to do with the tactical flexibility of the Manipular system.

As for the show I watched a few. The Attilla vs Alexander one was interesting-ish though Attila would have battered him from miles away with the bow. After the scenarios became more ridiculous I sort of lost interest and as people have said its appealing to a certain type of audience.

Oh, c´mon mate, do not tell me about Sparta and ancient Greek, I spent few years on university with them, Im really far from "hey, I ´ve seen 300, theyre cool!" Spartans surrended, many times lost, thir system wasnt good for large cale war (too few soldiers).
Part about polis wasnt suggesting anythin about Romans, but on mere weakness of Achaian system. Usually, even in Peloponessian wars, they wasnt able to sustain few losses - they ran out of fighting force. For example, one polis (cant remember if Thessalia...dunno) was almost wiped out, because they alway had "place of honor" in phalanx...and also biggest losses. And it was done in cca 30 years. So, I was argumenting against strengh of greek forces:) (not Macedonian, that was completely other story...and difficult for me to distinct in post, when we are talking about two different systems).


For Macedonians...well... This is for longer discussion. For me, macedonian system was too specialized. In basic system, it was great...till thing went good way. But lack of adaptatability for different situation was (for me) what made legions better - premarian or postmarian. Whey macedonian phalangite has to change his ROE (abandon spear, take short weapon), he was doomed.

For show - yeah, its pushing more and more to audience type Im not...:/

The whole Spartan elite fighting force that entered the popular consciousness since 300 and the subsequent documentaries drive me mad. I think you mean the Thebans rather than the Thessalian. Yes the Spartans had a populatory decline but that had more to do with stringent citizenship laws and a massive earthquake though Leuctra in 371 had an effect. Yeh lets not get into Macedonian warfare well be here all day.

I know bugger all about Ninja's other than the usual Sengoku/Unification period stuff

[Abyss]

Zombie vs Vampire was silly good fun.

[Darkwatch]

One day they will reach ascension of Nerd Rage inducing fights:

Star Trek vs. Star Wars

The internet will collapse in a frothing sea of impotent rage.

This post has been edited by Darkwatch: 04 October 2011 - 03:33 AM

[Abyss]

If they ever figure out how to effectively reproduce blasters and phasers then it's only a question of time.

Tho I'll hold out for Terminator vs Robocop.

[Dolmen 2.0]

robocop everytime.